[whatwg] some issues
mattraymond at earthlink.net
Tue Jul 6 06:11:06 PDT 2004
Jim Ley wrote:
[Snipped parts answered by Ian.]
>>>>Secondly, why can't we just create a Web Forms 2.0
>>>Because most mobile browsers aren't upgradeable?
>> Not sure what you mean.
> The current proposals do not apply to XHTML Basic, therefore we cannot
> serve our WF2 documents to XHTML Basic UA's. a Mobile Profile of WF2
> won't change this for the legacy clients, as they cannot be upgraded.
Sounds like you have the makings of a good thread on how WF2 needs
to be corrected to degrade gracefully on XHTML Basic user agents.
>>>Competitive advantage by inventing new elements etc. is how the war
>>>was fought 9 years ago, I think people are right to be suspicious.
>> Suspicion and reason are not the same thing.
> No, but you seem to be missing the whole thrust of mine, and C
> Williams arguments, that perception is incredibly important, it's not
> just the reality that matters.
By posting messages about things like browser vendors having too
much influence on the group on the public WHAT WG mailing list, you
yourself are creating the basis for such perception.
>>The Mozilla Foundation didn't exist. Safari didn't exist.
> Not that I actually think it's relevant, but many of the individuals
> in the WHAT WG were involved with browsers at the time. (which is good
> of course, getting their expertise involved)
I fail to see your point from a suspicion angle. Is there a reason I
should, for instance, suspect David Hyatt of being partial and
>>It may simply be that discussion is not open to the public, but there's
>>on official secrecy requirement.
From the document above:
"Documents SHOULD clearly indicate whether they require Member-only
Now look at this URL:
It does NOT have a Member-only designation.
>>Stop wasting our time.
> As you keep noting, you don't have to read, or reply.
Yes, I can simply leave your paranoid ravings unanswered in a public
More information about the whatwg